PLAN announce strategic shift

Status
Not open for further replies.
covert_shores said:
i think that this would have precisely the opposite effect and reinforce China's sense of righteousness surrounding owning the south China sea.

I wasn’t being super serious with that idea. But it does illustrate a point that the USA and friends (the 1,000 ship navy) have a huge overmatch against China in air sea warfare. The USA and friends also have massive underutilized potential. Though there is clearly a lack of political will to utilise this potential for defence purposes. The point being if they want to the USA and co. can easily dissuade China with military force. Either by building a giant ferro-steel fortress to sit off Shanghai or more realistically to deploy significant conventional air sea combat power into the region. That they aren’t is either a realistic appreciation of China’s lack of actual military intent or a terrible case of strategic myopia. History will decide which one.

covert_shores said:
In a hot war scenario I can imagine China has more than enough subs and surface combatants to break out through all choke points simultaneously regardless of which neighbors are involved. Most of the surface combatants would have to return or RZ in whatever turns out to be the real focus area after a few days but the initial numeric advantage is clear. The SSNs are clearly the greatest threat once lose in the Pacific due to their persistence.

Underwater maybe but not with surface fleets. Surface ships cannot survive against enemy tac air without their own organic tac air (carriers). The USA, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia all have plentiful maritime ISR and tac air with excellent anti ship missiles within or rapidly deployable to the region in strength. Any Chinese attempt to sortie their surface fleet through one or all of their choke points would result in a massacre. Bases like this one in the Spratly Islands enable them to operate with shore based air support within the southern half of the South China Sea like they would within the northern half and the East China Sea but they would not be able to support a break out against the regional A Team.
 
Nobody, but nobody is trying to pick a fight with China proper.

Even with the Pacific Pivot the US (regional allies and friends included) is merely trying to search for a believable, meaningful and stable strategic balance so that incentives to pursue perceived self-interests outside international conventions, law and peaceful means remain as low as possible. Historically, some existing islands and shoals have been claimed by rickety settlements though even these acts' ramifications are highly questionable and inevitably transient in nature. Practically all of the circling nations have some unjustifiable claims over "rights" in the South China Sea (usually bilateral and symmetric tit-for-tat spats) but none more blatant, all- encompassing and absurd than China.

Their claim, the so-called "Nine-dotted line" which encompasses practically the whole sea - including, one might add, every other nations' well established economic areas, clearly and unequivocally demarcated by international maritime law - has no real precedent nor justification. At best it's a complete fabrication by the Republic of China (pre-1949), arbitrarily adopted by the People's Republic. Approached for comment or explanation various Chinese authorities have never managed or bothered to elucidate their position in any meaningful way at all. They just state it and actually inflate the claims even further.

Adding "land" by dredging only underlines this fabrication and is a direct and overt challenge, not only of other South China Sea nations, but of international law and conventions writ large. Or a practical, physical, consequential translation of a heretofore hypothetical, argumentative (if absurd) construct. Or, to put it into yet other words, a return to geopolitics backed by force alone. The parallel to the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of eastern Ukraine by Russia is clear. It is in keeping, and strengthening, a trend which disregards and destroys both the immediate and the future interests (self-determination, prosperity) of the absolute majority of people almost irrespective of their current circumstances, for the sake of the relative power of a very few.

Which is why PLA/-N's unprecedented actions go well beyond a "worrying signal".

This should not be mistaken for a negotiation.

It is mind-boggling (with for example the complete overhaul of the mainland economy and infrastructure, both of which are manifestly sustainable only through a sufficiently integrated and functional global economy) that the leadership of China should see this as being in their interest, short- or long term. But unless they act in random, somehow they do. Any reaction should recognize and be at least commensurate with this.

Every rational actor bordering the South China Sea (and by extension everyone whose trade routes traverse the area) has every interest to keep shipping lanes open for business. The natural resources inherent to the sea/ -bed can, China and everyone else willing, can be jointly managed by existing conventions and law. If any one actor tries to deny this then all should be equally denied until such a time the matter can be resolved through joint, equal normative diplomacy.

At least some of the largest energy companies have strategies with regard to humanity's capacity to evolve or transition our energy and material flows from finite to circular - orderly and chaotic ones. Sadly, this South China Sea development, among others, points to the latter option. Again, the ramifications extend way beyond the region.

For example, Carl Bildt, fmr. prime and foreign minister of Sweden, participating in the 14th Asia Security Summit (29 - 31 May, 2015, also known as the "Shangri-la dialogue") tweeted this on the 30th:

"Time to hope China would be 'responsible stakeholder' in international system over. Now question is what they will seek to change. #SLD15"

Pretty concisely and definitively put.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Underwater maybe but not with surface fleets. Surface ships cannot survive against enemy tac air without their own organic tac air (carriers). The USA, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia all have plentiful maritime ISR and tac air with excellent anti ship missiles within or rapidly deployable to the region in strength. Any Chinese attempt to sortie their surface fleet through one or all of their choke points would result in a massacre. Bases like this one in the Spratly Islands enable them to operate with shore based air support within the southern half of the South China Sea like they would within the northern half and the East China Sea but they would not be able to support a break out against the regional A Team.
My expectation would be that they wouldn't get shot at most of the time and even significant losses would be strategically acceptable for PRC (similarly to the British taskforce in the Falklands). The main reason is because the 'Allies' would be too slow and uncoordinated to act.
 
Here is the REAL reason that China is attempting to shift focus onto the South China sea and away from its worsening internal problems. Creating external enemies is an old trick when you are have major problems at home


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/01/us-china-economy-pmi-hsbc-idUSKBN0OH16A20150601


"...China's economy has foundered this year as a cooling housing market and slowing growth in exports, domestic investment and consumption knocked growth to a six-year low of 7 percent in the first three months of the year."
 
Most developed Western countries would dream of a 7% GDP growth rate....
 
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/05/13/is_the_us_economy_actually_leaving_china_behind_111189.html

Interesting 'differing' take on the relative 'sizes' of economies.
 
Hot Breath said:
Most developed Western countries would dream of a 7% GDP growth rate....

It's hard to grow much when you're already developed and efficient. When you're poor and undeveloped, you have a *lot* of room for growth, especially when you can piggyback on someone else's technological developments, and can undercut them via sweatshops and the like.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Hot Breath said:
Most developed Western countries would dream of a 7% GDP growth rate....

It's hard to grow much when you're already developed and efficient. When you're poor and undeveloped, you have a *lot* of room for growth, especially when you can piggyback on someone else's technological developments, and can undercut them via sweatshops and the like.

Some rather large assumptions there about how well developed and efficient most Western nations are. Seems to me that they are all too often lagging behind in the realms of infrastructure and of course management. Third world nations are in similar positions but don't have to pull down stuff to make room for new stuff to the same extent.

Of course you could keep all technological developments for your self but that might be a bit hard to turn into an actuality. I much prefer that all technological developments are considered open source for everybody to use and benefit from.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Hot Breath said:
The problems that technological selfishness have caused are considerable to world development. Perhaps its time to stop thinking about something you've thought up as "yours" and instead share it with everybody so it becomes "ours" and we all work together. Or is profit your only drive in life?

A market economy with limited liability companies, private investment and patent protection- it has worked just fine for centuries and the alternatives usually produce results somewhere on the scale from economic collapse to genocide.
Exactly 100% correct. That 99% of human economic progress and wealth creation has come from the EXACT opposite of what he says and that is such a stunning admission of economic ignorance that it boggles the mind.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Hot Breath said:
The problems that technological selfishness have caused are considerable to world development. Perhaps its time to stop thinking about something you've thought up as "yours" and instead share it with everybody so it becomes "ours" and we all work together. Or is profit your only drive in life?

A market economy with limited liability companies, private investment and patent protection- it has worked just fine for centuries and the alternatives usually produce results somewhere on the scale from economic collapse to genocide.

Mmm, so that would explain the success of Linux under the Gnu Public licensing system, would it?

Of the three you've named, patent protection is considered the worst for preventing the free sharing of information about technological developments to those who need them but can't afford to pay for them...

Personally, I don't care about limited liability companies or private investment, it works as well as a socialist economic system does. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the slogans are bad and the artwork is worse.
 
Kadija_Man said:
JFC Fuller said:
Hot Breath said:
The problems that technological selfishness have caused are considerable to world development. Perhaps its time to stop thinking about something you've thought up as "yours" and instead share it with everybody so it becomes "ours" and we all work together. Or is profit your only drive in life?

A market economy with limited liability companies, private investment and patent protection- it has worked just fine for centuries and the alternatives usually produce results somewhere on the scale from economic collapse to genocide.

Mmm, so that would explain the success of Linux under the Gnu Public licensing system, would it?

You think somebody is going to design and build a car, jet, or power station for free? That's just priceless.

Kadija_Man said:
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the slogans are bad and the artwork is worse.

Hey could you direct me to the free version of ILM and Weta? I need some cool 3D graphics done and I don't want to pay for them.
 
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
JFC Fuller said:
Hot Breath said:
The problems that technological selfishness have caused are considerable to world development. Perhaps its time to stop thinking about something you've thought up as "yours" and instead share it with everybody so it becomes "ours" and we all work together. Or is profit your only drive in life?

A market economy with limited liability companies, private investment and patent protection- it has worked just fine for centuries and the alternatives usually produce results somewhere on the scale from economic collapse to genocide.

Mmm, so that would explain the success of Linux under the Gnu Public licensing system, would it?

You think somebody is going to design and build a car, jet, or power station for free? That's just priceless.

Why ever not? If they love designing, seeing something produced from their design should be sufficient reward.

Kadija_Man said:
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the slogans are bad and the artwork is worse.

Hey could you direct me to the free version of ILM and Weta? I need some cool 3D graphics done and I don't want to pay for them.

ILM is in Los Angeles. Weta is in New Zealand. I'm sure you'll find some CGI artists who'd be interested.[/quote]
 

Correction: ILM is located in the Bay area and has been there for several decades. Regarding low cost 3D graphics you might start your search with artists who use Blender as their software of choice


https://www.blender.org/
 
Hot Breath said:
Orionblamblam said:
It's hard to grow much when you're already developed and efficient. When you're poor and undeveloped, you have a *lot* of room for growth, especially when you can piggyback on someone else's technological developments, and can undercut them via sweatshops and the like.

Some rather large assumptions there about how well developed and efficient most Western nations are. Seems to me that they are all too often lagging behind in the realms of infrastructure and of course management. Third world nations are in similar positions but don't have to pull down stuff to make room for new stuff to the same extent.

Of course you could keep all technological developments for your self but that might be a bit hard to turn into an actuality. I much prefer that all technological developments are considered open source for everybody to use and benefit from.

An idealistic view to be sure. Yes, the pursuit of pure math, science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc), and certain technological developments should be open source to everyone. You'd still have to have an accreditation system, but these fields would forward humanity as a whole. On the other hand, you would be absolutely foolish to think that technological developments in the areas such as security and defense should be freely available to everyone. I'd sincerely hope you have the discretion to know what should and shouldn't be open source.

Hot Breath said:
The problems that technological selfishness have caused are considerable to world development. Perhaps its time to stop thinking about something you've thought up as "yours" and instead share it with everybody so it becomes "ours" and we all work together. Or is profit your only drive in life? ::)

Technological selfishness? You are better off giving examples for evidence instead of spouting what frankly looks like Marxist ideology.

Kadija_Man said:
Mmm, so that would explain the success of Linux under the Gnu Public licensing system, would it?

Your cherrypicking is about as obvious as it gets.

Kadija_Man said:
Of the three you've named, patent protection is considered the worst for preventing the free sharing of information about technological developments to those who need them but can't afford to pay for them...

You seemed to have completely ignored the concepts of plagiarism and theft of intellectual property. :mad: It should be the creator's choice whether or not his/her developments should be freely available or not.
 
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Why ever not? If they love designing, seeing something produced from their design should be sufficient reward.

Do you have a job? Do you get paid? Why?

I have a job. I get paid. I live in a capitalist economy. Therefore I need money to survive. If, on the other hand I lived in a socialist economy....

You'd still need money. Ask anybody who lives in a socialist country. So, you prattle on about how everything should be free and yet you yourself don't work for free. I believe that's what's known as a "hypocrite".

I am not a hypocrite. I am merely captive of the society in which I live. If I was 30 years younger and didn't have kids, I'd be off to a more socialist nation like a shot.

Kadija_Man said:

Show me proof of them providing their services for free. Have fun!

Look through their websites. You might be surprised. ::) [/quote][/quote]
 
ähhhm -... are we still within the topic: PLAN announce strategic shift ???
 
Deino said:
ähhhm -... are we still within the topic: PLAN announce strategic shift ???

Yes though you might get the impression that PLAN announced a strategic shift to Anarcho-capitalism!
 
Kadija_Man said:
I am not a hypocrite. I am merely captive of the society in which I live. If I was 30 years younger and didn't have kids, I'd be off to a more socialist nation like a shot.

Some of my friends from Poland, China, and Lithuania will take serious exception to suggestions of living in a more socialist society. Given their parents' experiences, I'd say they have a fairly good idea of what it brings.

Kadija_Man said:
Look through their websites. You might be surprised. ::)

Yeah, I looked through their websites. They are contracted to do visual effects for movies. What exactly is free?
 
sferrin said:
Yeah, "Hot Breath/Kidija Man" got the derail going at post #94. Apparently he thinks this site is his soap box. *shrugs*

Sigh.

Profile -> Modify Profile -> Buddies/Ignore List... -> Edit Ignore List

The function is there for a reason, people. If someone is a troll or an idiot, put 'em on "ignore" and move on.
 
What's with all the personal attacks? :(


I'm with Deino on this: Can we get back on topic?
 
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
Yeah, "Hot Breath/Kidija Man" got the derail going at post #94. Apparently he thinks this site is his soap box. *shrugs*

Sigh.

Profile -> Modify Profile -> Buddies/Ignore List... -> Edit Ignore List

The function is there for a reason, people. If someone is a troll or an idiot, put 'em on "ignore" and move on.

Yeah, he's on my ignore list.
 
Deino's question is answered, I think, and the answer clearly is : NO !
I tried to clean up this thread of personal attacks and posts, that have
absolutely NOTHING to do with the title. Maybe some posts, that had
relevance fall victim to this action, sorry, but shit happens.
Boring, annoying, just another experience, that politics obviously cannot be discussed here ! :mad:

Thread locked
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom